United Nations: Conscience v. Convenience

Three months ago the U.S. risked the displeasure of its NATO allies by supporting an Afro-Asian resolution in the U.N. Security Council calling for an investigation of Portugal’s police action in Angola. The expected reaction ranged from cool disapproval in London and Paris to violent attacks on the U.S. in Lisbon and Luanda. Last week the U.S. again chose to stand on its anticolonial convictions even at the risk of embarrassing a European ally.

The issue was a Security Council resolution inspired by 42 Afro-Asian states, demanding that Portugal “desist forthwith from repressive measures” in Angola and take “immediate steps” toward giving Angola self-government and independence. The Russians loudly demanded outright condemnation of the Portuguese, hoping to force the U.S. into the position of “protecting” the colonialist Portuguese.

But the Africans have gained in maturity in the few months since Nikita Khrushchev first banged his shoe on a U.N. desk. They recognize that nothing much can be done in the U.N. unless it has the backing of the U.S., and they have shown willingness to accept moderate measures that the U.S. can support. Furthermore, Russian influence has dropped sharply. In African eyes, Khrushchev had proved a total flop in the Congo. Even some of his best African friends, among them Egypt’s Nasser (see below) and Ghana’s Nkrumah, have learned that dealing with Khrushchev is frustrating. In fact, Nkrumah has reportedly concluded that Khrushchev’s “troika” is a dangerous obstacle to Africa’s aspirations.

Four days of feverish negotiation produced a compromise resolution calling on the Portuguese but not the Angolans to stop the slaughter, but threatening no sanctions against the Portuguese. It passed 9-0, Britain and France abstaining, while the U.S. voted aye with the Russians. Said one U.S. official: “It was our vote on the first Angola resolution that convinced these Afro-Asians that we meant what we preached about colonialism. We had to go along.”